The Senate voted on Wednesday night to archive the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, “killing” it before it could reach trial and weakening accountability mechanisms for public officials, a law expert warned. 

Voting 19-4 with one abstention, the Senate agreed on the amended motion of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta to archive the articles of impeachment against the Vice President.

The neophyte senator had originally moved for dismissal, citing the Supreme Court’s “immediately executory” ruling that the articles of impeachment violated not only the one-year ban on the filing of more than one complaint against an impeachable official but also the right to due process. 

He eventually agreed to Majority Leader Joel Villanueva’s proposal that the complaint instead be archived.

According to University of the Philippines law professor Paolo Tamase, the Senate should have delayed the vote given that the high court is still hearing the motion for reconsideration filed on Monday by the House of Representatives.

“It instead chose archival, which virtually kills the impeachment, unless the Supreme Court reconsiders its decision,” Tamase told CoverStory on Wednesday night. “This weakens the Senate’s institutional position and neuters a check against the Supreme Court’s decision, which legal experts have assailed as incorrect.”

He also said what is needed is, not reform in the impeachment process, but “moral courage in our leaders.”

Those who voted yes along with Marcoleta and Villanueva were Senate President Francis Escudero and Senators Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Bato dela Rosa, JV Ejercito, Jinggoy Estrada, Sherwin Gatchalian, Bong Go, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Erwin Tulfo, Raffy Tulfo, Imee Marcos, Robin Padilla, Camille Villar, Mark Villar, and Juan Miguel Zubiri.

Senators Bam Aquino, Risa Hontiveros, Francis Pangilinan, and Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III voted no. Sen. Panfilo Lacson abstained.

Lacson explained that he “would rather wait [for], not preempt, the final ruling of the high court.”

Constitutional duty 

Hontiveros pointed out that the 1987 Constitution “entrusted the duty to try and decide all cases of impeachment to the Senate,” but that “today, we are voting to abandon this mandate.”

“It is our institution, which in the words of our colleagues, killed the articles of impeachment,” she said. 

But Escudero said: “Let history…record that in this moment, we chose the Constitution, we chose the rule of law by defending the integrity of the Supreme Court and maintaining the system of checks and balances under our republican system of government.

He said he wants the Senate to be remembered, “not for the passions we inflamed, but the principles we upheld.”

Zubiri, a member of the Senate minority who voted yes, said the impeachment complaint may be pulled from the archives depending on the high court’s decision on the House motion for reconsideration.

Dela Rosa, a devoted supporter of Duterte, said the Senate must abide by the high court’s ruling. “What message would we send out to our people if we, their legislators, will not honor the wisdom of the highest court in the land? Are we not, in effect, promoting anarchy?” he said.

Go, another Duterte ally, urged his fellow senators to “move on” from the case and focus on their duty to craft laws. 

Estrada said defying the high court’s decision would constitute an “unforgivable assault” on democratic institutions and “invite a constitutional crisis.” The senator’s father, then President Joseph Estrada, faced an impeachment trial that was cut short, triggering huge street protests that forced him to step down.    

Alan Cayetano said the impeachment case is now “dead” unless the high court reverses its ruling.

‘May God have mercy’ 

In explaining his vote, Sotto, a former Senate president, argued that the chamber as a legislative body could not archive the case. “How can the Senate archive something that is not before it? The articles are before the impeachment court. May God have mercy on your decision,” he said.

Sotto had moved to table the case instead of dismissing it, saying that the Senate should wait for the high court’s decision on the House motion. His motion was junked on a 19-5 vote, with Hontiveros, Pangilinan, Aquino and Lacson voting with him. 

“I know for a fact, that once [a case] is archived, it is dead,” Sotto said.

Pangilinan argued that deciding on Duterte’s impeachment case is “premature, as the [high court’s] ruling may still be reversed or modified.” He described the ruling as “disturbing,” saying it “is based on the wrong facts.”

In February, at least 215 out of 306 House lawmakers voted to impeach Duterte on charges of culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes, including misuse of more than ₱600 million in confidential funds. 

At Wednesday’s session, some senators found opportunity in the hours-long debate on Duterte’s impeachment case to chastise members of the House.

Escudero warned House lawmakers: “The Senate is not your playground to run after your political enemies. We are not an accomplice in any grand scheme.

“While others may be willing to play your game, I am not. I will never bow to a mob. I will never cower to the shrillest of voices.” 

Marcos, the elder sister of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., called on House lawmakers to exert their efforts to replace, not the Vice President, but her estranged cousin Speaker Martin Romualdez, whom she described as a spoiled brat.

“Ano kaya kung ‘yung Speaker n’yo na lang ang palitan n’yo? Kaya n’yo ‘yan (You can do it)!” she said, reading from notes and smiling widely.

‘Not a checkmate’

Quickly reacting to the Senate vote on Wednesday night, Manila third district Rep. Joel Chua said the House would not be deterred in its search for accountability. 

“The Senate action today is not a checkmate. But the Senate denied due process to the Filipino people. We are merely at an impasse,” Chua said in a statement, adding:

“This game is far from over. We still have strong moves to make in this high-stakes battle for justice and accountability.” 

Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno said it would have been prudent for the Senate to wait for the high court’s ruling on the House motion for reconsideration.

“Instead, the Senate hammered another nail on the coffin of accountability—whatever else one calls it, to dismiss, archive, or, in the words of one senator, kill the articles of impeachment,” Diokno said in a mix of English and Filipino.

He reiterated his call for the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling, saying that “even the highest officials must be held accountable for wrongdoings against the Filipino people.”

In a brief statement, the Office of the Vice President said Duterte’s defense team “acknowledges the Senate’s decision to adhere to the Supreme Court ruling and archive the articles of impeachment.”

“Our focus now remains on submitting our comment, in compliance with the high court’s order,” it said. 

Sought for comment, Malacañang Press Officer Claire Castro told CoverStory that the President would not interfere in the matter. 

“What he cares about now is not the impeachment but his work for the welfare of the Filipinos. It is the duty of the Senate and House to do their tasks according to their mandates,” Castro said.

“He always says, ‘Let the process take its course,’ which means that everybody should abide by the law, follow the rules,” she said.

Pressure on high court lessened

UP law professor Tamase told CoverStory that the Senate “has traditionally resisted the Supreme Court’s interventions in impeachment using still-constitutional methods.”

But the Senate vote to archive the impeachment complaint against Duterte, he said, “weakened accountability mechanisms because it lessens the pressure on the Supreme Court to reverse its decision that will micromanage impeachments—a potential check against its own members.”

“It also sends a signal that the Senate can indeed find many ways to shirk its important mandate in impeachments, which really started when it delayed the trial and remanded it to the House,” he said.

According to Tamase, however, there is no need for reform. When asked if the impeachment process needs amendments to prevent abuse of rules, he said: “The process itself is clear and simple, and it has worked in the past. If anything, what’s needed is moral courage in our leaders. That is as necessary in a working constitutional system as good institutional design.” 

For now, Tamase said, those who filed the impeachment complaint should await the high court’s ruling on the House motion.

“But it would be prudent for them to also prepare for a refiling. If the Supreme Court’s decision is not reconsidered, then the House rules would also be amended,” he said.

“In the meantime, the prosecution should find ways to preserve the evidence it already has, and the defense should not let its guard down,” he added.